|
11-18-2003, 12:09 PM
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
Professor of Drinkology
|
Public Campaign Financing?
Kerry, Bush and Dean have opted out of public campaign financing -- the $3 donation on your tax return that 11% of Americans give with their income taxes. What is your opinion on the matter? Is public campaign financing dead? What about the criterian for funding -- "qualified candidates"?
__________________
Blah. |
|
|
11-18-2003, 02:25 PM
|
#4 (permalink) |
|
Dubya
Location: VA
|
I'm very conflicted about this issue, which I have a feeling many folks are. One the one hand I see shameless pandering to special interests as a result of things of this sort, the most recent example being the so-called 'energy' bill.
On the other hand I read that Americans spent $3 billion dollars on the 2000 election cycle. Not just on the president, but congress, state and local government. Which sounds like a lot, but is just half what Americans spent on chewing gum that year.
__________________
"In Iraq, no doubt about it, it's tough. It's hard work. It's incredibly hard. It's - and it's hard work. I understand how hard it is. I get the casualty reports every day. I see on the TV screens how hard it is. But it's necessary work. We're making progress. It is hard work." |
|
|
|
11-18-2003, 03:18 PM
|
#5 (permalink) |
|
Adrift
Location: Wandering in the Desert of Life
|
Kerry and Dean are just doing what they have to do in order to compete. If they limited themselves to what public financing provides, they would be buried by the Bush/Cheney warchest which is already over $100 million and expected to reach nearly $200 million. Would I like it if all the candidates spent less money, Yes, but it is unrealistic.
__________________
Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so." -Douglas Adams |
|
|
| Tags |
| campaign, financing, public |
|
|
